Chad Maddox DUI Victories

Jeremiah 9:23 “This is what the Lord says: ‘Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,’ declares the Lord.”

Garcia v DMV (2020) (Orange County)

This driver got mixed messages from the DMV, and it looked like they were going to suspend his license for having a high alcohol level while driving. We set a hearing, and the DMV suddenly decided to suspend based on an allegation that he refused testing. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate. After briefing, the judge was going to agree with the DMV, but we argued aggressively for 45 minutes… before the judge changed his mind. The client will now get a meaningful hearing, with no surprises.

DMV ORDERED TO GIVE NEW HEARING!

People v Perez, Y. (2020) (Bellflower)

A difficult, two-year battle, ensued when we took on this case. Judges usually will not allow diversion in a DUI case (when someone gets treatment to earn a dismissal without a conviction). After filing a lengthy motion, and subpoenaing a county employee to testify, the Judge agreed to allow diversion in this case. After two years of treatment, the case was dismissed.

DUI DISMISSED

People v Whitaker (2019) (Riverside)

A 2-year battle ends when the Appellate Department agrees with us, that a 2nd DUI Offender can have his case dismissed through Military Diversion.

WRIT GRANTED!

DMV v Oifoh (2019) (Orange County)

Oifoh had too many tickets and an accident, so the DMV started proceedings to suspend his license. We scheduled a hearing with the DMV. We prepared Oifoh for testimony, and he testified at the hearing. We also pointed out several portions of the DMV Driver Safety Manual in our arguments during the hearing. In the end, the DMV decided not to suspend!

SUSPENSION SET ASIDE!

People v LoveBennett (2019) (Los Angeles)

63 year old woman with no history of crimes, crashes into another car in Long Beach, and drives away. Moments later she is stopped for a vehicle code violation in Huntington Beach, and arrested for DUI. She is taken to the hospital for a blood test, and Long Beach Police respond to investigate the hit and run. All charges DISMISSED!

HIT & RUN DISMISSED

LaGrotta v DMV (2019) (Los Angeles)

LaGrotta was arrested for DUI and the DMV alleged he refused to complete a chemical test so his license was suspended for 1 year. He would lose his job without a license, so he needed to fight it. After we filed a petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles County, the DMV offered to give his license back. LaGrotta accepted, kept his license and his job.

SUSPENSION SET ASIDE!

People v Verduzco (2019) (Orange County)

DUI charges DISMISSED, “wet” reckless admitted. Defendant had immigration papers pending and needed a reduction of the DUI charges. He was speeding and driving erratic on the freeway, and blew .096%. After negotiating for 3 months, we set the case for trial. On the day of trial, the DA agreed to reduce the charges.

DUI CHARGES DISMISSED – (“wet” reckless admitted)

People v Williams, A (2019) (Los Angeles County)

Police arrested Mr. Williams for an alleged 2nd DUI, while on probation. A traffic collision caused a neighbor to call police. The police report indicated that Mr. Williams was still in his car, and the neighbor had witnessed him driving. Mr. Williams was impaired and arrested. The investigation by my office revealed that Mr. Williams was not in the cat when police arrived, and the witness never actually saw Mr. Williams drive or even if he was ever in the car!

CASE DISMISSED!

Garcia, A v. DMV (2019) (Los Angeles County)

After submitting a brief to the DMV for a hearing, the DMV ruled against my client, and in fact ignored the brief completely. We filed a writ in superior court, seeking relief for Garcia, as well as all drivers faced with a similar hearing. The DMV immediately changed its decision, giving back the license to Garcia. DMV then asked us to dismiss the case. We will not dismiss without getting relief for all other drivers as well. We began discovery. The DMV stonewalled us and attempted to obtain a protective order. The court denied the protective order, and awarded us $9,200.00 in attorney fees. Now we move forward with depositions. This is only the first phase of this case, but we have already won for this client, and gotten some fees. We will update this entry when there is more to report.

SET ASIDE OF SUSPENSION. ATTORNEY FEE AWARD $9,200.00.

People v. G. Kowalski (2019) (Riverside County)

Mr. Kowalski was arrested for his 6th DUI, so it was a Felony case. He had been stopped for weaving, running a stop sign, and driving too slow. He took a breath test in the field, with readings of .108% and again with .114%. After arrest, he took a breath test at the station, with readings of .09% and again .09%. After 5 days of trial, the jury took about 90 minutes to find him NOT GUILTY!

ACQUITTAL BY JURY – NOT GUILTY

People v Ryan M. (2019) (Orange County)

Ryan was arrested for DUI and given a citation. When he went to court, the case had not been filed. He received a notice in the mail telling him of a new date. He went again, and again the charges had not been filed. Six years later, he was applying for a job and they told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. He contacted me, and I went to court.

I filed a Serna motion to dismiss for the delay in prosecution. The motion was granted.

Motion to Dismiss – GRANTED – CASE DISMISSED.

Cardenas v DMV (2018) (Los Angeles)

Alleged refusal. Mr. Cardenas was in a motorcycle accident. He laid in the street for nearly 45 minutes before police arrived. He had suffered a concussion. Police conducted a DUI investigation and arrested him. They asked him to give a breath or blood test. He refused. They obtained a blood sample anyway.

We requested a hearing with the DMV to review all the evidence. The paperwork was completed incorrectly- it failed to indicate whether the DMV was suspending for the refusal, or for an excessive BAC. We prepared a brief arguing the evidence failed to show a BAC of .08 or more. The DMV suspended, claiming he refused.

We filed paperwork in court. The judge agreed that the DMV could not suspend for a refusal without first giving notice that it intended to do so. The court lifted the suspension, and sent the case back to the DMV for a new hearing.

At the new hearing, we presented expert testimony that Mr. Cardenas was unable to comprehend the warnings he was given, due to the head injury. The DMV ignored the testimony and suspended again. Again, we filed paperwork in court. Again, the judge agreed that the DMV was wrong – the evidence we presented should have prevented a suspension.

Alleged refusal. Police arrested Mr. Bueno, and read him the form telling him he was required to give a breath or blood sample. He refused. We requested a hearing with the DMV to review all the evidence. We noticed the officer had skipped a paragraph when he read the form to the driver. Because he was not given a complete admonition, the DMV should not be able to suspend his license. The DMV ignored our arguments and suspended his license. We filed paperwork in the Superior Court. The judge agreed that the DMV may not suspend unless a complete admonition had been given to the driver.

The Client was convicted of “DUI” in Ohio in September of 2009. The following month, the DMV suspended the Client’s driver license. The DMV did not have the legally required documents from Ohio when it suspended the Client’s license. The Client came to us in April of 2015 for assistance with getting his driver license reinstated.

We were able to demonstrate that DMV did not have the required documents until well after we had filed initial court documents seeking relief. Rather than facing the potential of a large attorney fee award by the court, the DMV agreed to set aside the suspension and pay a portion of the Client’s attorney fees.

Writ of Mandate – License suspension REMOVED and the DMV paid some of client’s attorney fees!

Scott W. v. DMV (08-31-2015) (Los Angeles County)

The Client was convicted of DUI in California in 2002. In July of 2005, the Client was convicted of “DUI” in Hawaii. During the next ten years, the DMV renewed the Client’s driver license three times. In addition, during that ten year period the Client committed no alcohol related offenses, had no traffic infractions, and was not involved in any traffic collisions. Yet, ten years later, and without explanation, the DMV suspended the Client’s driver license for two years based on his Hawaii “second offense.”

We filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court and conducted an emergency, Ex Parte, hearing before the judge to get the DMV’s action put on hold while the case was pending. The judge immediately put a stop to the DMV unjust, and illegal action. We were able to demonstrate that not only did a “DUI” conviction in Hawaii not meet the criteria to be a DUI in California, but that the DMV had taken too long to take action against the Client. Soon after the judge put a stop to the DMV’s action, the DMV contacted us and agreed to set aside the suspension action and remove the Hawaii conviction from the Client’s driving record.

Writ of Mandate – License suspension REMOVED

Vincent V. v. DMV (08-11-2015) (Riverside County)

The Client was stopped for allegedly weaving and subsequently administered a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test with a BAC result of 0.03%. At the Client’s Administrative Per Se (APS) hearing, Mr. Maddox presented evidence that the Client had not committed any traffic violation and expert testimony that the PAS test was not reliable. Despite the evidence, the DMV suspended the Client’s license for one-year.

We filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court and conducted an emergency, Ex Parte, hearing before the judge to get the DMV’s action put on hold while the case was pending. The evidence was so overwhelming that not only did the judge put the suspension on hold; but, rather than facing the prospect being ordered to pay the Client’s attorney fees for its arbitrary and capricious conduct, the DMV agreed to set-aside the suspension without any additional court action.

Writ of Mandate – License suspension REMOVED due to overwhelming evidence that it was the Court ordered to pay the Client’s attorney fees

David I. v. DMV (06-30-2015) (Los Angeles County)

After the Client was arrested for DUI, he completed breath tests with results of 0.08%. At the DMV Administrative Per Se hearing, his attorney presented evidence that the breath testing device was malfunctioning before and after the Client’s breath test. In addition, the DMV ended the hearing before the Client was able to present all of his evidence. The DMV then issued a one-year license suspension and one-year disqualification of the Client’s Class A commercial driver license. Faced with imminent termination of his employment because of the commercial license disqualification, the Client came to us for help.

We filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court and conducted an emergency, Ex Parte, hearing before the judge to get the DMV’s action put on hold while the case was pending. Our legal arguments were so overwhelming that the DMV came to us after the hearing and agreed to set aside both the suspension and disqualification of the Client’s licenses.

The Client was arrested for DUI when she was involved in an accident. She caused minor damage to another vehicle; however, her car rolled several times and she was severely injured. Nobody else was injured in the collision. The Client had no prior history of DUIs, traffic collisions, or traffic infractions. In addition to the license suspension actions as result of her DUI, the DMV also revoked the Client’s license for having caused a serious injury accident.

We filed a motion to put the revocation on hold while the case is pending. After reading our legal arguments, the DMV contacted us to settle case. Before we ever set foot in a courtroom, the DMV set aside the revocation.

Writ of Mandate – License was not REVOKED

Jared H. v. DMV (06-03-15) (Los Angeles County)

The Client was represented by another attorney at his DMV hearing that took place subsequent to his DUI arrest. At the conclusion of the first hour the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV hearing officer agreed to reconvene the hearing to allow the Client to present expert testimony in his defense. The hearing officer was then overruled by her supervisors and told the Client could not present his defense. The DMV then suspended the Client’s license..

We filed a writ of mandate alleging that the DMV had violated the Client’s Due Process right to a fair and meaningful hearing before suspending his license. The DMV immediately set aside the suspension and granted the Client a new hearing. In addition, the DMV settled the case by paying a portion of the Client’s attorney’s fees.

Writ of Mandate – License suspension REMOVED and was granted a NEW hearing with DMV

The People v. Martin M. (04-27-15) (Orange County)

The Client was arrested for DUI on September 18, 2013 and released on his written promise to appear with a scheduled court date of October 21, 2013. On October 21, 2013 the District Attorney had not yet filed a complaint charging him with a crime. On October 23, 2013 the DA charged him with DUI and, although they had no proof they had done so, claimed they sent Client a letter advising him he had a new court date on November 25, 2013. Because the Client had no knowledge of the November 23, 2013 court date he did not appear and a warrant for his arrest was issued on December 13, 2013.

On December 3, 2014 the Client first learned he had a warrant for his arrest when he was stopped for a traffic violation and placed under arrest for the outstanding warrant. The Client lived in the same location, a location known to numerous government agencies, during this entire time period. The Client came to us for help and we filed a motion to have the case dismissed for violation of his Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution right to a speedy trial.

The trial court agreed the Client’s Constitutional right had been violated by the prosecution’s failure to make any effort to bring the Client before the court and dismissed the case.

Motion to DISMISS DUI for Violation of Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial

William H. v. DMV (04-24-15) (Riverside County – Palm Springs)

The Client was stopped for DUI. He did a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test 22 minutes after being stopped with a result of 0.086%, and two minutes later a PAS of 0.088%. Twenty-six minutes later he did a blood test with a 0.08% result. At the DMV hearing the Client’s expert testified his BAC was rising and 0.07% or less at the time of driving. The DMV Hearing Officer then asked the expert to calculate the Client’s level using the Widmark Equation with information provided by the Hearing Officer. The expert did and concluded that using the Widmark Equation the Client’s level would still have been below 0.08% at the time of driving. The DMV suspended the Client’s license anyway. He came to us and we filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to have the DMV’s decision overturned.

The Client came to us to save his license and livelihood. We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had abused its discretion by completely disregarding the Client’s expert’s testimony. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

DMV License Suspension REMOVED while case pending

The People v. Frank M. (04-13-15) (Orange County)

The Client was arrested for DUI on December 11, 2012 and released on bail with a scheduled court date of January 8, 2013. When he appeared in court on January 8, 2013 the District Attorney had not yet filed a complaint charging him with a crime. On May 6, 2013 the DA finally charged him with DUI and, although they had no proof they had done so, claimed they sent Client a letter advising him he had a new court date on June 3, 2013. Because the Client had no knowledge of the June 3, 2013 court date he did not appear and a warrant for his arrest was issued on June 13, 2013.

On March 28, 2014 the Client first learned he had a warrant for his arrest when he was denied employment. The Client lived in the same location, a location known to numerous government agencies, during this entire time period. The Client came to us for help and we filed a motion to have the case dismissed for violation of his Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion, explicitly stating it was not going to apply the U.S. Constitutional standard because the case was in state court. We appealed to the Superior Court Appellate Division who summarily denied our appeal.

The Court of Appeal stated, “The trial court’s refusal to apply the correct legal standard to Miranda’s federal speedy trial claim represents an error of law and therefore the appellate division abused its discretion when it denied” our Client’s appeal. The Court of Appeal did not even conduct oral arguments: “After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record below, we conclude that Miranda’s entitlement to a new hearing under both the state and federal speedy trial standards is “so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue.”

Motion to DISMISS DUI for Violation of Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial – GRANTED – CASE DISMISSED!

Marvin B. v. DMV (04-06-15) (Riverside County)

he Client is a truck driver dependent on his Class A commercial license in order to earn a living. While driving his car, he was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” His attorney obtained a copy of a video of the stop, which showed that the Client was not committing any violation of the rules of the road when he was stopped. At the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV refused to view the video or admit it into evidence. The DMV then suspended his license for four-months, and his commercial license for one-year. We filed a Writ challenging the DMV’s violation of the Client’s Due Process right to a fair and meaningful hearing, which the DMV settled by agreeing to grant the Client a new hearing. At the new hearing, the DMV erroneously concluded that the video showed the Client “weaving” within his lane.

The Client came to us to save his license and livelihood. We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had abused its discretion because the video demonstrated the traffic stop of the Client was unlawful. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

Ex Parte Application to put suspension of license on hold GRANTED!

Joseph B. v. DMV (03-12-2015) (Los Angeles County)

The Client was convicted of a single DUI in the State of Arizona. However, the DMV put the conviction on his driving record twice and issued a two year second offender suspension.

After we filed our opening brief with the court, the DMV settled the case by correcting the Client’s driving record to only reflect a single conviction, allowing the Client to be eligible for a restricted driver license.

The Client was stopped and arrested for DUI. While still at the scene of the arrest, but after she was arrested, the officer administered two breath tests. The officer then transported the Client to police station where she demanded the Client complete another set of breath tests. When the Client was unable to complete a second set of breath tests the officer demanded the Client complete a blood test. When the Client asked the officer what happened to her blood after it was tested, the officer declared her a refusal. When the Client arrived late to her DMV hearing, the DMV refused to allow her to testify and told her the hearing was closed. The DMV then suspended her license for one-year for a chemical test refusal.

Case settled out of court. The DMV agreed to grant Client a new DMV hearing and stay the suspensions of her license pending the outcome of the new hearing.

(SPECIAL NOTE – Never represent yourself at a DMV hearing, this is a virtual guarantee your license will be suspended.)

Writ of Mandate – Granted a NEW hearing and withhold suspension on license

Marvin B. v. DMV (02-09-15) (Riverside County)

The Client is a truck driver dependent on his Class A commercial license in order to earn a living. While driving his car, he was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” His attorney obtained a copy of a video of the stop, which showed that the Client was not committing any violation of the rules of the road when he was stopped. At the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV refused to view the video or admit it into evidence. The DMV then suspended his license for four-months, and his commercial license for one-year.

Case settled out of court. The DMV agreed to grant Client a new DMV hearing and stay the suspensions of his licenses pending the outcome of the new hearing.

Writ of Mandate – Granted a NEW hearing and withhold suspension on license

Halston R. v. DMV (01-29.15) (Orange County)

In June of 2004, the Client was convicted in Utah of operating a vehicle with a “metabolite of a controlled substance” in his body. In March of 2008 the Client was convicted of DUI in Los Angeles County. After the 2008 Los Angeles conviction, the DMV suspended the Client’s license as it would for any first offender. One year later, after the Client had completed all the requirements to have his license reinstated, the DMV gave the Client a two-year second offender suspension based on the Utah and Los Angeles convictions. The Client came to us in December 2014 to have his record cleared and license reissued.

The offense the Client was convicted for in Utah is not a crime in California; therefore, the DMV acted without legal authority when it used that conviction as a basis for suspending the Client’s license. We were able to obtain an emergency court order directing the DMV to reinstate the Client’s license while the case was pending. Soon thereafter, the DMV agreed to settle the case and remove the Utah conviction from the Client’s driving record.

Writ of Mandate – REMOVED Utah conviction off record and License was reissued

Lewis V. Shiomoto (01/28/15) (Court of Appeal – Fourth District)

Lewis was stopped for DUI. He did a Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) test 25 minutes after being stopped with a result of 0.084%, and two minutes later a PAS of 0.082%. SIx minutes later he did a chemical breath test with a 0.091% result and a second test three minutes later of 0.088%. A blood test an hour and 16 minutes later was 0.094%. At the DMV hearing Lewis’ expert testified his BAC was rising and 0.07% or less at the time of driving. After DMV suspended his license anyway, Lewis sought a writ of mandate in the superior court to overturn the decision. The superior court granted the writ of mandate. The DMV appealed the superior court decision.

We were able to demonstrate for the Court of Appeal that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision and that the DMV’s arguments were speculative and not based on the evidence. The Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the superior court decision.

DMV License Suspension – Set Aside

David P. v. DMV (01/27/15) (Los Angeles County)

Client was arrested for DUI and provided a blood sample. The Sheriff’s Crime Lab tested the blood with a 0.09% result. A re-test at an independent lab showed a result of 0.07%. The DMV ignored the re-test and expert testimony and suspended Client’s license.

We established that the 0.07% test was valid and rebutted the presumption the Client was driving with a BAC of 0.08%. We showed that Client’s expert witness was credible and the DMV’s expert was not. Without the three-hour presumption the DMV did not have evidence Client was driving with a BAC of 0.08% or more. The Court agreed and set-aside the suspension.

DMV License Suspension – Set Aside

Mike D. v. DMV (12-16-14) (Orange County)

In November 2014 the Client was convicted of a first offense DUI in Orange County. Subsequent to the conviction, the DMV issued a two year second offender suspension notice to the Client based on a June 2005 Ohio “DUI” conviction and the Orange County conviction. However, the DUI laws in Ohio are not substantially the same as the DUI laws in California and the DMV may not give effect to an Ohio DUI conviction unless it has Ohio court records establishing that the conviction meets the legal requirement to be a DUI in California.

We sent the DMV a letter demanding it remove the Ohio conviction and correct the suspension notice to a first offense or face court action. As we were heading to court the DMV complied with the demand and the Client was able to get a restricted license.

Writ of Mandate – CORRECTED conviction to first offence and Client was able to get a restricted license

People v. Brooke M. (11-18-14) (Orange County)

Our client was under the age of 21 when she was involved in a hit and run collision with a BAC of 0.20%. The District Attorney did not file a complaint before the date the Client had promised to appear in court. After the District Attorney filed a late complaint a warrant was issued for the Client’s arrest; however, the Client was never notified of the complaint or warrant. A year later, she went to DMV to reinstate her license and was informed about the warrant.

We filed a motion for violation of the Client’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court agreed her right had been violated and dismissed the case.

DUI Hit and Run – DISMISSED

P.S. v. DMV (11-12-14) (Los Angeles County)

The Client made a left turn in front of a speeding motorcycle. The motorcyclist was killed when he collided with the our Client’s SUV. The DMV sought to revoke the Client’s license for negligently causing the death of another motorist.

We were able to demonstrate that the Client was not responsible for causing the fatal accident; and, that she could not have reasonably avoided the accident. The DMV agreed and set aside the proposed license revocation.

Vehicle Fatality License Revocation – SET ASIDE

People v. Joshua F. (10-30-14) (Orange County)

Client was stopped at a DUI checkpoint in Huntington Beach with an alcohol level of 0.13%. The court failed to start his trial on the last day allowed by law because there were no jurors available. The next day the trial court denied the Client’s motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial rights. We appealed to the Superior Court Appellate Division, which summarily denied relief.

We took the case to Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court and ordered it to dismiss the Client’s case.

DUI Case – DISMISSED

Trudy A. (10-16-14) (Los Angeles County)

In March 2013 the DMV refused to give our Client a driving test and summarily concluded she was not physically able to operate a car and revoked her license. Our Client hired another law firm to help her with no success. She came to us for assistance.

After the local DMV driver safety office refused our request to grant her a reexamination we sent a letter to DMV Headquarters asserting the Client’s legal right to a reexamination and threatening court action. Within one week the DMV contacted us to schedule the reexamination.

DMV Driver’s License Reexamination – GRANTED

People v. Daniel D. (10-14-14) (Los Angeles County)

Client was stopped for speeding and had a BAC of 0.08%. The officer driving the police car did not write a report. The passenger officer was the arresting officer, wrote the report, including that he had observed all of the Client’s driving. We filed a pre-trial motion. The DA only subpoenaed the driver officer and did not subpoena the passenger officer to the motion. The driver officer was on vacation and was never served the subpoena. The DA made a routine motion to continue the motion until the officer was back from vacation. We vigorously opposed the motion on the grounds the driver officer was not necessary and that the DA had not been diligent in securing his attendance.

The judge agreed with us that the driver officer was not necessary; and, because the DA had not subpoenaed the arresting officer they were unable to proceed in the time required by law. Case dismissed.

DUI Case – DISMISSED

Romney M. v. DMV (09-02-14) (Los Angeles County)

The Client was stopped and arrested for DUI. While still at the scene of the arrest, but after she was arrested, the officer administered two breath tests. The officer then transported the Client to police station where she demanded the Client complete another set of breath tests. When the Client was unable to complete a second set of breath tests the officer demanded the Client complete a blood test. When the Client asked the officer what happened to her blood after it was tested, the officer declared her a refusal. When the Client arrived late to her DMV hearing, the DMV refused to allow her to testify and told her the hearing was closed. The DMV then suspended her license for one-year for a chemical test refusal. (SPECIAL NOTE – Never represent yourself at a DMV hearing, this is a virtual guarantee your license will be suspended.)

The Court ordered the suspension put on hold while the case is pending. We were able to demonstrate that the Client was likely to prevail in the end because she had completed a chemical test after she was arrested; and, because the DMV violated her Due Process Rights by refusing to allow her to testify or present evidence at her hearing.

Ex Parte Application for Stay of Suspension of License

Marvin B. v. DMV (08-21-14) (Riverside County)

The Client is a truck driver dependent on his Class A commercial license in order to earn a living. While driving his car, he was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” His attorney obtained a copy of a video of the stop, which showed that the Client was not committing any violation of the rules of the road when he was stopped. At the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV refused to view the video or admit it into evidence. The DMV then suspended his license for four-months, and his commercial license for one-year.

The Client came to us to save his license and livelihood. We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had violated the Client’s Due Process Right to a fair and meaningful hearing before it suspended his licenses. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

Ex Parte Stay – GRANTED

Tamera W. v. DMV (08-20-14) (Orange County)

In July 2009 the DMV suspended the Clients driver’s license for an indefinite time period for chronic and excessive use of alcohol after she was arrested for her third and fourth DUIs. The Client sought to have her license reinstated in March 2013, August 2013, and in April 2014. In all three instances, the DMV refused to reinstate the Client’s license because it believed she needed a longer period of sobriety.

After we filed the paperwork to get the case started in the court, and conducted a hearing to have a temporary license issued while the case was pending, the DMV offered to reinstate the Client’s license in exchange for her dismissing the case and waiving a claim to costs and attorney’s fees. The basis was that we were able to show that not only had DMV violated its own guidelines in refusing to reinstate the Client’s license, but that it had violated the Client’s First Amendment Freedom of Religion Rights by requiring her to attend specific faith based self-help programs (AA) in order to have her license reinstated.

DMV suspended the Clients driver’s Lic. indefinitely for excessive use of alcohol after her 3rd and 4th DUIs. The DMV refused to reinstate her license 3 times before she came to our office for help. After seeing the case we prepared during our first hearing, the DMV offered to reinstate the Client’s license. in exchange for dismissing the case!

Writ of Mandate – GRANTED

Marvin B. v. DMV (08-21-14) (Riverside County)

The Client is a truck driver dependent on his Class A commercial license in order to earn a living. While driving his car, he was stopped by the CHP for “weaving.” His attorney obtained a copy of a video of the stop, which showed that the Client was not committing any violation of the rules of the road when he was stopped. At the Client’s DMV hearing, the DMV refused to view the video or admit it into evidence. The DMV then suspended his license for four-months, and his commercial license for one-year.

The Client came to us to save his license and livelihood. We were able to demonstrate that it was likely the DMV had violated the Client’s Due Process Right to a fair and meaningful hearing before it suspended his licenses. The Court put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

DMV License Suspension REMOVED while case pending

People v. Ricardo E. (7-16-2014) (Orange County)

Client was stopped for speeding, unsafe start, and unsafe left turn. The client was then arrested on suspicion of a DUI. Orange County attorney Chad Maddox was able to show that Client was not speeding; and, got the arresting officer to admit that the start and turn were not unsafe! The Judge threw out the evidence gathered by the police and promptly dismissed the driving under the influence charges.

Case DISMISSED

People v. R.M. (6-18-14 )(Orange County)

Client was stopped for weaving and crossing over a double yellow line and subsequently arrested for DUI. Chad was able to convince the Judge that was not weaving and had not crossed the double yellow line. The Judge found the officer did not have a reason to stop the Client and threw out the evidence gathered by the police. Because of the lack of evidence, the prosecuting DA had no choice but to dismiss all charges against the defendant.

Case DISMISSED

Matt S. v. DMV (06-05-14) (Orange County)

The DMV placed a single Arizona “DUI” conviction on his California driving record TWICE. It is not permissible to place a single conviction on the driving record twice. It also is not permissible to put an out-of-state conviction on a California driving record unless the DMV has court records from the other state proving that the conviction arose from actual driving because Arizona, and most other states, permit a “DUI” conviction for conduct that is not a DUI in California. After we filed a petition to have the Arizona convictions removed, the DMV finally acknowledged its error in placing the conviction on the record twice, but refused to remove it entirely. The court ordered DMV to remove the Arizona conviction and set aside the resulting suspension.

Writ GRANTED

Brian B. V. DMV (06-03-14) (Los Angeles County)

In 2006 Client was convicted of DUI just after moving to New Jersey from California, but before getting a New Jersey license. Client moved back to California in 2007 and was convicted of a second DUI in California in 2008. He completed all the requirements for a second offender to get their license back, but the DMV refused to issue him a license because he had not completed California first offender requirements after his New Jersey conviction. The judge agreed the DMV was wrong and ordered the DMV to issue the Client a license.

Writ GRANTED

Adam S. v. DMV (05-27-14) (Los Angeles County)

Client was arrested for DUI and taken to a police station and offered a breath test. Client refused the breath test and requested a blood test. The officer refused to offer Client a blood test. The law requires a driver be offered a breath or blood test when arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Despite the clear language of the law, the DMV suspended the Client’s license for one-year for refusing a chemical test. The judge placed the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

Ex Parte Stay GRANTED

Jordan L. v. DMV (04-24-14) (Orange County)

The DMV placed an Ohio “DUI” conviction on his California driving record. This is not permissible unless the DMV has court records from the other state proving that the conviction arose from actual driving because Ohio, and most other states, permit a “DUI” conviction for conduct that is not a DUI in California. The DMV did not have the required records when it placed the Ohio conviction on the Client’s California driving record and the court ordered DMV to remove the Ohio conviction and set aside the resulting suspension.

Writ GRANTED

Sal F. v. DMV (04-23-14) (Los Angeles County)

Client had 2002 DUI conviction in California and 2013 DUI conviction in Nevada. The DMV disqualified his Commercial Driver’s License for life; and, Client faced loss of employment of 14 years with a major Southern California company. The DMV was incorrectly applying the 2002 DUI conviction to the 2005 law regarding commercial driver’s licenses. The judge agreed and ordered the Client’s COMMERCIAL LICENSE REINSTATED while the case was pending, saving the Client’s job.

Soon after the judge granted the preliminary injunction, the DMV settled the case, permanently reinstating the Client’s commercial driver’s license.

Preliminary Injunction GRANTED / Case SETTLED

James V. v. DMV (03-07-14) (Los Angeles County)

The DMV revoked Client’s license, including his Commercial Driver’s License, after he was taken to the hospital unconscious from drinking too much alcohol at home. Client never drove after consuming alcohol. Despite having no supporting evidence, the DMV revoked Client’s licenses because it thought he might have a seizure disorder. The judge reversed the DMV’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the Client’s license and commercial driver’s license.

Writ GRANTED

Holliday v. DMV (01-28-14) (Los Angeles County)

This driver was convicted in Arizona under that state’s DUI statute. The California DMV put that conviction on his California driving record. We filed a petition in court to have it removed. While the case was pending, we sought to have the DMV ordered to ignore the Arizona conviction so that the driver could obtain his license again here in California without completing a DUI class. After the DMV was unsuccessful in getting the judge to dismiss the case, it SETTLED the case, reinstating the Client’s license without the need to take the DUI class and removing the Arizona conviction from his driving record.

Case SETTLED

Brian B. V. DMV (01-21-14) (Los Angeles County)

In 2006 Client was convicted of DUI just after moving to New Jersey from California, but before getting a New Jersey license. Client moved back to California in 2007 and was convicted of a second DUI in California in 2008. He completed all the requirements for a second offender to get their license back, but the DMV refused to issue him a license because he had not completed California first offender requirements after his New Jersey conviction. The judge ordered DMV to issue him a license while the case was pending.

Ex Parte Application GRANTED

George S. V. DMV (01-07-14) (San Diego County – Vista)

In 2011 Client was convicted of “DUI” in Illinois. The DMV placed the Illinois “DUI” conviction on his California driving record. This is not permissible unless the DMV has court records from the other state proving that the conviction arose from actual driving because Illinois, and most other states, permit a “DUI” conviction for conduct that is not a DUI in California. After the Client was convicted of DUI on California on 2013, the DMV imposed a two-year second offense suspension based on the Illinois conviction. The judge put the suspension hold while the case was pending.

Ex Parte Application GRANTED

M.R.. v. DMV (01-07-14) (Los Angeles County)

This driver was convicted in New Jersey in 2003 under that state’s DUI statute. The California DMV put that conviction on his California driving record and imposed a second offender license suspension after the Client was convicted of DUI in California in 2013. This is not permissible unless the DMV has court records from the other state proving that the conviction arose from actual driving because New Jersey, and most other states, permit a “DUI” conviction for conduct that is not a DUI in California. We filed a petition in court to have the New Jersey conviction removed. Soon after filing the petition, the DMV acknowledged their error and removed the conviction from his California driving record.

Case SETTLED

Rachel B. v. DMV (12-12-13) (Los Angeles County)

Client was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in 2007 in North Carolina. After she plead guilty in 2013 to a DUI in California, the DMV gave her a two-year second offender license suspension. While the case was pending to have the North Carolina conviction removed from her driving record the court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the DMV to reinstate her license.

Preliminary Injunction GRANTED

James V. v. DMV (10-22-13) (Los Angeles County)

The DMV revoked Client’s license, including his Commercial Driver’s License, after he was taken to the hospital unconscious from drinking too much alcohol at home. Client never drove after consuming alcohol. Despite having no supporting evidence, the DMV revoked Client’s licenses because it thought he might have a seizure disorder. The judge stayed the revocations while the case was pending.

Ex Parte Stay GRANTED

David P. v. DMV (09-06-13) (Los Angeles County)

This Client was arrested for DUI and submitted to a blood test. The Sheriff’s crime lab reported the alcohol level result as 0.09%. An independent lab tested the same blood and got a result of 0.07%. The Client presented the 0.07% results and expert testimony at his DMV Administrative Per Se hearing. The DMV ignored the evidence and suspended the Client’s license for driving with an alcohol level of 0.08% or more. The judge put the suspension on hold while the case is pending.

Ex Parte Stay GRANTED

Holliday v. DMV (8-27-2013 )(Los Angeles County)

Application for Order to Show Cause GRANTED
This driver was convicted in Arizona under that state’s DUI statute. The California DMV put that conviction on his California driving record. We have filed a petition in court to have it removed. While the case is pending, we sought to have the DMV ordered to ignore the Arizona conviction so that the driver could obtain his license again here in California without completing a DUI class.

Application GRANTED

Arturo B. v. DMV (08-08-13) (Orange County)

Client was arrested for DUI after being involved in a crash. After the breath testing device malfunctioned, Client agreed to blood test but refused to agree to the hospital’s requirement of a full medical evaluation prior to the blood test. The DMV suspended his license for one-year for refusing a chemical test. The judge put the suspension on hold while the case was pending.

Ex Parte Application for Stay GRANTED

Lewis v. DMV (7-31-2013 )(Orange County)

This driver had a breath test of .08% and blood test of .09% so the DMV suspended her license. At an administrative per se hearing, an expert testified. The expert explained that the device was not giving a true number, because the driver was still absorbing alcohol at the time of driving. The expert explained that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving was actually about .06%. The DMV still suspended. We sought review in the superior court. The judge ruled that the expert testimony rebutted the DMV’s prima facie case, and without any additional evidence from the DMV, the suspension should be set aside.

Writ of Mandate – GRANTED

Kang v. DMV (7-2-2013)(Los Angeles County – Downtown)

Ex Parte Stay GRANTED
This driver has his career on the line. The DMV claims he refused a chemical test after being arrested for alleged DUI. In the criminal case, the DUI charges were dropped. But the DMV still suspended his license. He did not refuse a chemical test. He was simply asking reasonable quetions after the officers gave him a confusing admonition. I am seeking review in the Superior Court. The judge put the suspension on hold until the final outcome of this case.

Manoukian v. DMV (6-27-2013)(Los Angeles County – Downtown)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED
This doctor was driving on the freeway when another car became disabled and stopped unexpectedly in traffic. The doctor was unable to stop in time, and a fatal collision occured. The DMV revoked his license! I sought review in the Superior Court. The Judge ruled the revocation was not warranted.

Khamishon v. DMV (6-12-2013)(Sacramento County – Downtown)

Temporary Restraining Ordery GRANTED
The DMV recorded a conviction from Arizona on this driver’s driving record. It should not be on there, because Arizona laws are substantially different than California laws. I sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the DMV from using the Arizona conviction against him here in California, until the court can reach a final decision on this matter. The restraining order was granted.

People v. Yang (5-29-2013)(Orange County – Newport Beach)

2nd DUI – DISMISSED
After this driver hired me, I prepared for trial. On the day of trial, the DA was unable to proceed, so the case was dismissed!

People v. Schneider (5-29-2013)(Orange County – Newport Beach)

DUI and HIT and RUN DISMISSED – client plead to WET
This driver hit 4 parked cars and then drove home. Minutes later he was taken back to the scene by a witness. I was able to negotiate with the District Attorney assigned to the case. To her credit, she was very reasonable (some other DA’s are over-zealous and hard to work with). The DA agreed to dismiss the DUI and hit and run charges if the driver plead guilty to a “wet” reckless charge.

Kishida v. DMV (5-9-2013 )(Orange County)
Writ of Mandate GRANTED
This driver had a breath test of .09% so the DMV suspended his license. We requested an administrative per se hearing at the DMV, and had an expert testify. The expert explained that the device was not giving a true number, because the driver was still absorbing alcohol. In fact, this usually results in the breath test being .05 – .06 higher than the person’s true BAC. In this case, the expert explained that the driver’s BAC at the time of driving was actually about .06%. The DMV still suspended. We sought review in the superior court. The judge ruled that the expert testimony rebutted the DMV’s prima facie case, and without any additional evidence from the DMV, the suspension should be set aside. Writ GRANTED.

People v. Morris (5-8-2013)(Los Angeles County – Downey)

Case DISMISSED
This driver was visiting California from Hawaii. He was on the freeway in heavy traffic, travelling about 15 mph when he rear-ended another car. He exited the freeway and pulled over. The other driver (victim) stopped on the freeway. The victim thought the defendant had fled the scene, and called police. The victim and passenger claimed they had injuries to their neck and back, but did not seek medical attention until later. Eventually, the driver got back on the road to his destination – a BBQ at a relatives house. The police were able to locate the driver 2.75 hours later, and arrested him for Felony DUI and hit and run. After giving expert testimony on the BAC at the time of driving, and showing the court that the victims had been paid for their car and injuries ($6900 total), the court DISMISSED the case upon a motion by the defense.

Writ of Mandate GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license under the theory that he refused to submit to a chemical test after being arrested for DUI. However, the driver never really refused. He told officers that he was afraid of needles, and was unable to perform a breath test due to a previous injury. Officers forcibly took his blood sample which showed 0.04% (half of the legal limit, and an amount that is expressly presumed to be NOT impaired by the vehicle code). The court agreed that under the circumstances, telling the officers that he was afraid of needles was not the same as refusing to do the test.

Mangin v DMV (3-28-2013)(Orange County – Santa Ana)

Motion to Quash DENIED.
The DMV reported a Louisiana “DUI” conviction on his California driving record. This is not permissible unless the DMV has proof that the conviction arose from actual driving, since other states make it illegal to simply have control over a vehicle (i.e. sleeping in your car even if the engine is not on, or similar facts). After filing a Writ of Mandate, the DMV removed the conviction. However, the DMV did not want to reimburse my client for his attorney fees he had incurred. The case consintued in court on that issue. We planned on taking the depositions of DMV employees to discover exactly how and why the Louisiana conviction appeared on his driving record in violation of law. The DMV attempted to get a court order to stop the depositions. The Court agreed with us, that the depositions are allowed under the law, and denied the DMV’s motion. The DMV promptly offered $7500 to settle the matter.

Quintero v DMV (3-7-2013) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)

Ex Parte GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that he drove with a BAC of .08% or more. However, proper breath testing procedures were not followed, so the breath test results are not reliable. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.

People v. Luna (2-21-2013) (Orange County – Santa Ana)

REVERSED on Appeal
The trial court required the defendant to pay booking fees without any prior notice to defendant and without a hearing. We appealed. The Appellate Department reversed the trial court.

Manoukian v. DMV (12-13-2012) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that he was a negligent driver that caused a collision resulting in the death of another. This driver is a doctor, and the accident was not his fault. He was not drunk, and was not speeding. He simply collided with a vehicle that had become disabled on the freeway just moments before the collision. It was an accicent that could have happened to anyone. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.

Lewis v. DMV (11-29-2012) (Los Angeles County – Downtown)

Ex Parte GRANTED
The DMV suspended this driver’s license on the theory that his BAC was .08% or more. We filed a Petition with the Superior Court to seek review of that suspension. The Court agreed to put the suspension on hold while the case is pending in court.

People v Leighton (2-13-2013) (Orange County DUI)

Case DISMISSED.
This driver was charged with drunk in public while on DUI probation. After negotiating with the District Attorney for the driver to provide a DNA sample, the case was DISMISSED.

People v Smith (2-06-2013) (Orange County DUI)

Case DISMISSED.
DUI charges dismissed, client plead guilty to “wet” reckless.
This person was driving with no headlights, and had chemical test results of .12%

People v Ramos (1-30-2013) (Los Angeles County DUI)

Defendant found NOT GUILTY.
This driver was 18 years old, and had an initial breath test of .12% in the field.
He went to the station about 40 minutes later, and had a breath test of .10%
After several days of trial, he was found NOT GUILTY of DUI/.08%.

People v Araiza (11-19-2012) (Orange County DUI)

Case DISMISSED.
This client was arrested for suspicion of DUI six years ago. The prosecution did not file on time, waited almost a year to request a warrant, and then did not make any efforts to serve the warrant. The client didn’t even know there was a warrant. The delays resulted in a Speedy Trial and Due Process violation requiring dismissal.

Ward v DMV (10-02-2012) (Los Angeles County DUI)

Writ GRANTED.
Ward had a commercial license. He had 2 DUI’s and a Wet Reckless conviction. He was able to obtain a restricted license, but the DMV would not give him his commercial license back. He needed this to keep his job with the city. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The court agreed with our legal arguments, and ordered the DMV to reinstate the commercial lincense, and also awarded attorney fees and costs to the driver!

People v Garcia (7-9-2012) (Orange County DUI)

Case DISMISSED.
This driver was charged with driving on a suspended license. After negotiating with the District Attorney for the driver to provide a DNA sample, the case was DISMISSED.

Vega v DMV (7-6-2012) (Los Angeles County DUI)

Ex Parte stay of suspension GRANTED.
Vega is a person who is employed as a driver. Without his license, he is sure to lose his job. This driver was stopped at a DUI checkpoint and arrested. The DMV suspended his license, even though the records did not prove that the checkpoint was constitutional. We filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and an Ex Parte Application for immediate stay of the suspension.
The court GRANTED the stay so that this driver could keep driving while the case is pending a final resolution.

People v Abbruzzese (7-2-2012) (Orange County DUI)

Motion for Finding of Factual Innocence GRANTED.
This driver was stopped by Costa Mesa Police Department after allegedly weaving into an adjacent lane. After field sobriety tests, the driver was arrested. A chemical test later showed a BAC of .07%. The District Attorney did the right thing by not filing charges, but the arrest was still on the driver’s criminal record. We made a motion for the court to find that the driver was factually innocent, and have the arrest records destroyed.
The judge GRANTED the motion. The driver’s criminal record is now completely clean again.

Bodenmann v. DMV (06-13-2012) (Sacramento DUI)

Ex Parte stay of suspension GRANTED.
This driver’s license was suspended by the DMV. She hired us to seek review in the Superior Court. The judge stayed the suspension pending the outcome of the case.

People v. Villalobos (05-29-2012) (Long Beach DUI)

Case DISMISSED
Client’s BAC was .17%. He had a minor collision with a cop car. DUI charges DISMISSED. Client plead no contest to “wet” reckless. Client received no jail, reduced fines, no DUI suspension, and a short DUI class.

People v. Lewis (2012-05-08) (DUI Orange County)

Motion for Finding of Factual Innocence GRANTED.
This client has never been arrested in over 60 years. He drove through a checkpoint in Huntington Beach. Depsite having a BAC of only .03%, he was arrested for DUI. The DA’s Office did not press charges. However, this client still has the arrest on his record. We filed a motion asking a judge to find him Factually Innocent. It was GRANTED, so all the records related to his arrest will be destroyed and wiped clean.

People v. Quiseng (4-11-2012) (DUI Orange County)

Motion to Recalculate Custody Credits GRANTED.
This driver defended herself in a DUI case, and was convicted. The court sentenced her to 60 days of jail. After she started serving her time in the Orange County Jail, she was given a scheduled release date which would require her to serve 40 actual days in custody. Under the recent changes in the law, she should only serve 30 actual days. She hired me to rush to court to correct the calculation of her “good time/work time” credits. At the hearing, the judge agreed to correct the Court’s error. As a result, the driver was released 10 days earlier.

Ellis v. DMV (3-22-2012) (DUI Los Angeles County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
This Fedex Driver lost her commercial license after a DUI arrest. The DMV claims she refused a breath test. The officer signed a statement under penalty of perjury stating that the breath samples she gave were rejected by the breath machine. After further investigation, my office discovered she had in fact provided two samples which were measured by the machine. I obtained a continuance to give the judge an opportunity to consider this additional evidence.

Koob v. DMV (3-22-2012) (Los Angeles County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
This driver had her license suspended after a DUI arrest. The DMV claims she refused a chemical test, but we question whether she was ever told that her license would be suspended if she refused a test. She could not understand the officer when he was reading the admonition. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. She can continue to drive while the court has time to decide if the suspension was proper or not.

Murphy v. DMV (3-22-2012) (Los Angeles County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
This driver had his license suspended after a DUI arrest. His BAC was very low, and we hired and expert which testified that he was in fact lower than .08% at the time of driving. The DMV suspended his license anyway. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. He can continue to drive while the court has time to decide if the suspension was proper or not.

Coffey v. DMV (3-12-2012) (Orange County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
This student had her license suspended after a DUI arrest. Her BAC was very low, and she had an expert testify that she was in fact lower than .08% at the time of driving. The DMV suspended her license anyway. We filed a Writ with the Superior Court and sought an Ex Parte stay of the suspension. It was GRANTED. She can continue to drive while she graduates college this semester. Meanwhile, the court will decide if the suspension was proper or not.

Weber v. DMV (3-2-2012) (Orange County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
This person’s license was suspended after the police arrested him. They had come to his house after someone claimed his vehicle was in a traffic collision. There were no witnesses to identify the real driver. He now has his license back while the court considers the merits of the suspension.

Verdin v. DMV (2-29-2012) (Orange County)

Writ GRANTED by Superior Court – AFFIRMED by the Court of Appeal.
After the DMV denied this driver an opportunity to present expert testimony at his DMV hearing, we filed a Writ in Superior Court. The Judge GRANTED the Writ, ordering the DMV to give him another hearing. At the new hearing, the DMV ignored the expert and suspended his license anyway. We filed another Writ in the Superior Court. It was also GRANTED, requiring the DMV to give back his license. Instead, the DMV filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal AFFIRMED the Superior Court decision. Therefore, the DMV has to give back his license. In addition, the Court of Appeal awarded the driver his costs for fighting the appeal.

Nurse v. DMV (01-17-2012) (Orange County DUI)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV claimed this driver had suffered a prior DUI in Iowa. We challenged the use of the Iowa prior here in California because the Iowa law does not define the crime the same way we do here. Iowa makes it illegal to be impaired while operating a vehicle – which could mean the person never actually drove a car. In California, we require actual driving. The judge agreed and ordered the DMV to remove the “prior” from the record AND ordered the DMV to pay the driver more than $4,000.00 for herattorney fees and costs incurred by bringing the suit!

People v. Travis Webb (12-19-2011) (Orange County)

Case DISMISSED!
This person was arrested for a first offense over a year ago. His BAC was reported to be right at .08%. He was stopped at a checkpoint. He wanted to fight the case. When he went to court, there was no case filed. About a year later, he received a notice from DMV telling him his license was suspended for failing to appear in court. He hired me to correct this error and defend the case. I made a motion to dismiss based on a violation of his speedy trial right. The court agreed, and his record remains clear of a conviction now.

Collins v. DMV (11-23-2011) (Orange County)

Ex Parte to Stay the DMV Suspension GRANTED.
DMV claims this person refused a chemical test. What he actually did, was simply say that he would comply with anything as long as it did not violate his rights. The officer interpreted that response as a refusal. The OC judge agreed to stay the suspension in this case until he can hear all the evidence.

Jaffe v. DMV (11-03-2011) (Los Angeles County)

Ex Parte Stay of Suspension GRANTED.
DMV alleges this driver refused the chemical test, but the evidence shows he was not offered a blood test because it was considered too inconvenient. We sought review by a Superior Court judge, and the suspension is on hold until he can hear all the evidence.

Ellis v. DMV (10-27-2011) (Los Angeles County)

Ex Parte Stay of Suspension GRANTED.
The DMV claims this driver refused the chemical test, but she has medical reasons why the test was unavailable, therefore she should have been offered a urine test. Of course, she was never offered a urine test. We sought review by a Superior Court judge. The suspension is on hold until the judge can hear all the evidence.

Cirel v. DMV (8-12-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.

Ogaz v. DMV (8-11-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.

DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.

Deardorff v. DMV (6-28-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV used an Ohio conviction against this driver to increase his suspension period from 30 days to 12 months. I filed a Writ alleging the DMV did not have sufficient evidence to use the Ohio prior. The court agreed. The DMV was forced to treat his California DUI as a first offense.

Ogaz v. DMV (6-13-2011) (Orange County)

Motion for Preliminary Injunction GRANTED.
Judge determined that we were likely to prevail on the underlying Writ and ordered the DMV to stay the suspension. This is another Writ forcing the DMV to comply with the new IID license for 2nd offenders.

Petrosian v. DMV (4-27-2011) (Los Angeles)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
This driver lost his DMV hearing. He had an expert testify, but so did the DMV. We had to have a real judge weigh the evidence to get the correct decision. The judge ruled in favor of the driver, and he got his license back. The Court granted the Writ.

Paul V. vs DMV (4-19-2011) (DUI San Diego County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
This 2nd offender had an offense date prior to 7/1/2010 AND a conviction date prior to 7/1/2010. DMV claimed the new law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply. We challenged that in San Diego County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.

Wedemeyer v. DMV (4-14-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.

Medina v. DMV (4-14-2011) (Orange County)

Another Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ordering the DMV to issue a restricted license.

McFarland v. DMV (3-24-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
The DMV used a Florida conviction against this driver to increase his suspension period from 30 days to 12 months. I filed a Writ alleging the DMV did not have sufficient evidence to use the Florida prior. The court agreed. The DMV was forced to treat his California DUI as a first offense.

Segundo v. DMV (3-16-2011) (Los Angeles)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
I handled this client’s 2nd offense DUI, and resolved his case as a 1st offense to avoid jail time. The DMV claimed that he did not have 2 DUI convictions, despite the 1-year suspension imposed by the DMV after he was arrested the 2nd time. The court agreed with my client, that he had suffered 2 convictions, and therefore was eligible for a restricted license after 90 days. He was not required to suffer the entire 12 month suspension.

People v. Lewis (3-16-2011) (West Covina DUI)

Red Light Camera Ticket – Trial: NOT GUILTY.
Please note: I only handle DUI cases and related DMV matters. I handled this red light camera ticket as part of the defense provided in a DUI case.

Doan v. DMV (3-11-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED. Driver awarded $2,000.00 + costs.
After the DMV ruled against the driver at the APS hearing, we challenged the DMV decision. The DMV claimed the arresting officer did not have to sign the arresting document (DS-367), and that when another officer signed the proof of service section that was sufficient. After we filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate, the DMV conceded we were right and gave back the driver license. The court required the DMV to reimburse the driver the attorney fees and costs he had incurred in the process.

McNerny v. DMV (3-10-2011) (Los Angeles)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted the Writ, ording the DMV to issue a restricted license.

Vargas v. DMV (3-9-2011) (Orange County)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in Orange County and the Court granted a restricted license pending the outcome of the case.

Paul V vs DMV (3-3-2011) (San Diego County DUI)

Ex Parte GRANTED.
DMV claims the new 7/1/2010 law allowing restricted license for 2nd and 3rd offenders installing the IID does not apply to people with offenses prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged that in San Diego County and the Court ruled that the driver made compelling arguments, and granted a restricted license pending the outcome of the case.

Black v. DMV (2-17-2011) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
DMV claimed that the new 7/1/2010 law giving a restricted license to 2nd or 3rd offenders does not apply to drivers with offense dates prior to 7/1/2010. We challenged this claim in the Superior Court of California, Orange County. The Judge ruled that it did apply to my client, despite the offense date being prior to 7/1/2010.

Enoc v DMV (2011-01-21) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
Driver arrested for DUI. DMV attempted to suspend his license without giving him an oportunity to present expert testimony. We sought review from the Superior Court. The court ruled the DMV was required to give the driver a new hearing to present the expert testimony. The expert testified that the driver’s BAC was .01-.07% at the time of driving. The DMV ignored the testimony and suspended the license. We sought review from the Superior Court again. The court overturned the DMV decision, and the driver’s license was reinstated.

Celso v. DMV (2011-01-20) (Los Angeles)

Fee Waiver – GRANTED.
Driver is challenging unlawful suspension of his license by DMV. He applied for a fee waiver and the Superior Court held a hearing to determine if the waiver should be granted. It was granted.

Lisa v. DMV (2011-01-7) (Orange County)

Writ of Mandate GRANTED.
Driver was arrested for DUI. She was asked to do a blood or breath test and she declined. The officer never advised her that her license would be suspended if she refused. The DMV suspended her license anyway. We challenged the DMV at the Superior Court. The court GRANTED the Writ, overturning the 1-year suspension.

People v. Jason (2010-12-27) (Whittier DUI)

Client found NOT GUILTY.
After beginning a jury trial, and winning an important motion limiting the admissibility of breath evidence, the prosecution dropped one charge, and the judge found the driver Not Guilty of the other charge. This outcome avoided a conviction for DUI, and resulted in an immediate reinstatement of the driver license.